1
2
3
FOREWORD ... 5
PRÉFACE ... 6
OPENING SPEECH ... 7
KEYNOTE SPEECH: Luxembourg, un don du multilinguisme ... 8
TermCoord ... 12
Challenges in Serbian terminology management, policy and planning ... 16
Défis en gestion des terminologies, en politique et en planification terminologiques pour la langue serbe ... 29
Terminology work in the digital era: ... 31
New challenges of the democratization of knowledge ... 31
Le travail terminologique à l’ère du numérique : nouveaux défis de la démocratisation des
savoirs ... 45
Blogging our way into the future of terminology ... 46
Entrons dans l’avenir de la terminologie en bloguant ... 48
Terminologie et néologie dans les réseaux sociaux ... 49
Terminology workflows at an Austrian university aimed at collaboration, terminology awareness and joint responsibility for university terminology – a study on the University of
Vienna’s terminological database UniVieTerm ... 58Flux terminologiques dans une université autrichienne ciblant explicitement le travail
collaboratif, l’éveil de la conscience terminologique et la responsabilité commune et partagéepour la terminologie académique – une étude de la BDT UniVieTerm de l’Université de Vienne ... 67
Inspired by the past, based on the present, looking at the future ... 68
Inspirés par le passé, ancrés dans le présent et regardant vers l’avenir ... 75
EU Terminology for a semantically interoperable IATE ... 76
Terminologie de l’UE pour une IATE douée d’interopérabilité sémantique ... 87
Uncovering the value of forgotten Slovak terminological data ... 90
Découvrir la valeur de données terminologiques slovaques oubliées ... 91
20 years of terminology data base archiving and exchange, past and future ... 92
Visions of new responsibilities and opportunities for terminologists and terminology centres 95 Standardization of terminology and terminology in standardization. The role of Standards Norway ... 96
Normalisation de la terminologie et terminologie de la normalisation ... 101
Terminology Policy Standards ... 103
Normes de politique terminologique ... 108
4
IDITE: applying new technologies to give a step forward in terminology quality assessment and
control ... 109
Recourir aux nouvelles technologies afin d’avancer d’un pas dans le contrôle et l’évaluation de
la qualité des terminologies ... 117
The Terminologist of the 21
stCentury ... 119
Le terminologue du 21
esiècle ... 122
Le profil du terminologue – reloaded ... 123
Notion de crochet terminologique revisitée (domaine français–roumain) ... 128
Visiting and Revisiting in Medical Terminology: A Successful C+D Dictionary – a Philological Tool Specialized in Oncology and Diabetology for Medical Translations and Retroversion from Romanian into English. A Case Study ... 139
Une bonne connaissance des règles de la traduction peut-elle limiter les transferts terminologiques ? ... 150
Brussels Declaration for International Cooperation on Terminology ... 151
La déclaration de Bruxelles pour une coopération terminologique internationale ... 153
Authors/Auteurs... 155
5
Annelise Grinsted, the first EAFT President in 1996, said in an interview in 2006: “It is always wise to stop and reflect.” So that was what we did.
In 2016, the EAFT celebrated its 20th anniversary – and self-reflection seemed to be in vogue.
Therefore, the 8th EAFT Terminology Summit (organized in collaboration with TermCoord in Luxembourg on 14–15 November 2016) was a good opportunity to look back at the past and look to the future at the same time, to present both revisions of the themes of earlier Summits (and see what had happened since then) and visions of where terminology needed to go from there.
The overall topic for the Summit was: “Visions and revisions”. “Revisions” should not be thought of as an overly critical activity that would also include some changes or corrections, but rather as a way to revisit and reflect upon the previous thematics from a new perspective.
The 8th Terminology Summit was organized into 8 sections, each summarizing the main ideas or themes of an earlier Summit: Cooperation & Collaboration, Social Media, Quality Matters,
Responsibility, Interaction and Diversity, the Terminologist’s Profile, State Of The Art/Domain Loss, Declaration. (I remember suggesting to the EAFT Board some years ago that a whole Summit be devoted to the theme of “domain loss”, but at the time it was not considered mature enough. Only later did this issue take on proportions worthy of a Summit and it is therefore included alongside State-of-the-art in one section.)
The idea was that each section was to contain at least a revision and a vision related to the thematic of the section. Some areas that might appear to be missing from the above (e.g. terminology training, terminology research, terminology standardization, terminology management, terminology tools) were in fact not missing, but rather they appeared in several sections.
There were also open sessions, where professionals who wanted to share their experiences relating to the Summit topics could do so during a set time limit. The open session was a new idea, since the Summit has traditionally been an event with invited speakers only, rather than a traditional
conference with a call for papers. The open session was seen as a way of giving more people the opportunity to speak.
These proceedings present some articles, based on the presentations of the speakers at the 8th EAFT Terminology Summit. Most articles have a summary in French or English (depending on the language of the article). The French translations were funded by a grant from DGLFLF (Délégation générale à la langue française et aux langues de France) and carried out by Anca Velicu, University of Bucharest.
Although the Summit has always been one of the most important activities of the EAFT, it should also be remembered that the EAFT supports other events and also organizes separate workshops in between, or in connection with, the Summits. But the Summit does have a special place in our hearts, as an event where the big issues can be highlighted and discussed. In a time where terminology
organizations and events are becoming more and more scarce and terminology training programmes are being closed, this seems more important than ever.
6
En 2006, Annelise Grinsted, la première présidente de l’AET en 1996, a déclaré dans une interview: « Il est toujours sage de s’arrêter et de réfléchir. » C’est ce que nous avons fait.
En 2016, l’AET a célébré son 20ème anniversaire – et l’autoréflexion semblait être en vogue. Par conséquent, le 8ième Sommet de terminologie de l’AET (organisé en collaboration avec TermCoord à Luxembourg les 14 et 15 novembre 2016) a été une bonne occasion de revenir en arrière et de présenter simultanément les deux révisions des thèmes des précédents Sommets (de voir ce qui s’est passé depuis) et des visions portant sur la terminologie devrait aller de là.
Le thème général du Sommet était: « Visions et révisions ». Ici, la « révision » ne devrait pas être considérée comme une activité trop critique qui inclurait également certains changements ou
corrections, mais plutôt comme un moyen de revisiter et de réfléchir sur les thématiques précédentes à partir d’une nouvelle perspective.
Bien que l’idée d’organiser le Sommet de Terminologie d’AET autour d’un thème central n’ait pas été introduite depuis le début, le 8ième Sommet de Terminologie était composé de 8 sections qui
tentaient de résumer les principales idées ou thèmes des précédents Sommets: Coopération &
Collaboration, Médias Sociaux, Questions de qualité, Responsabilité, Interaction et diversité, Profil du terminologue, État de l’art/Perte de domaine, Déclaration. (Je me rappelle avoir suggéré au Bureau de l’AET de consacrer tout un sommet au thème de la « perte de domaine», mais à l’époque, ce n’était pas assez mûr comme sujet.) Plus tard, cette question a pris des proportions dignes d’un Sommet et conséquemment inclus à côté de l’État de l’art dans une section.)
L’idée était que chaque section devait contenir au moins une révision et une vision liée à la thématique de la section. Certains domaines qui semblent peut-être manquer à ce qui précède (par exemple : la formation en terminologie, la recherche en terminologie, la normalisation terminologique, la gestion terminologique, les outils terminologiques) ne manquaient pas, mais ils apparaissaient dans plusieurs sections.
Il y avait aussi des sessions ouvertes, où les professionnels qui voulaient partager leurs expériences sur les sujets du Sommet pouvaient le faire pendant une période déterminée. La séance ouverte était une nouvelle idée introduite puisque l’idée originale du Sommet était un événement avec des conférenciers invités seulement et non celui d’une conférence traditionnelle avec appel à
communications, et c’était perçu comme un moyen de donner à plus de gens l’opportunité de parler.
Ces actes présentent quelques articles, basés sur les présentations des intervenants au 8ième Sommet de terminologie d’AET. La plupart des articles sont accompagnés d’un résumé en français ou en anglais (selon la langue de l’article). La traduction a été rendue possible grâce à une subvention de la DGLFLF (Délégation générale à la langue française et aux langues de France) et à travers le travail d’Anca Velicu, de l’Université de Bucarest.
Bien que le sommet ait toujours été l’une des activités les plus importantes de l’AET, il convient également de rappeler que l’AET soutient d’autres événements et organise également des ateliers séparés, entre les Sommets ou en relation avec ceux-ci. Mais le Sommet a une place spéciale dans nos cœurs, comme un événement où les grands problèmes peuvent être mis en évidence et discutés. À une époque où les organisations terminologiques et les événements deviennent de plus en plus rares et où les programmes de formation en terminologie sont en cours d’être fermées, cela semble plus important que jamais.
7
Honourable minister, dear EAFT President, dear colleagues and guests,
It is an immense pleasure to welcome you today to this historic venue – the very first hemicycle of the European Parliament (1973) – for this, the VIIIth Terminology Summit of the European Association for Terminology (EAFT). A historic venue for a historic moment, as a little over two decades ago, on 3rd October 1996 in Kolding, Denmark, the EAFT was founded. We are thus celebrating its 20th anniversary – a very happy birthday to you all!
As one of the key components of multilingualism, terminology goes right to the heart of our work here at the European Parliament’s Directorate-General for Translation. Our dedicated terminology unit, TermCoord, together with all the terminologists from the various language units, all play a very active part in the overall architecture of EU terminology, and they do so for three main reasons:
1. Firstly, as co-legislator with the Council for the ordinary legislative procedure, it is Parliament that is responsible for the linguistic quality and consistency of translated legislative texts, which become original legal acts in every single official and working language of the EU;
2. Secondly, with deadlines often tight, the nature of parliamentary output and session documents is such as to require proactive work and meticulous terminology research;
3. And lastly, whenever a new official language is introduced – most recently Croatian – terminology is pivotal. Preliminary terminology work must be extensively undertaken in order to translate the acquis communautaire and lay the groundwork for the translation of all new EU acts. This demands concerted efforts to work together with national linguistic authorities, as the fabled European jargon – Eurospeak – has to be transposed or, in lieu of any clear equivalents, even created outright.
Here, terminologists play an absolutely essential role.
Nous avons l’honneur d’accueillir un grand nombre d’éminents terminologues en provenance d’universités et d’organisations internationales. Leurs contributions à ce sommet portent sur des sujets importants et d’avenir. Je les remercie tous d’avoir fait le chemin jusqu’à Luxembourg et je suis certain qu’ils feront de ce sommet une réussite.
Permettez-moi de relever que la réussite d’un séminaire de cette envergure dépend non seulement des intervenants, mais aussi du public. Et je vois que nombre de terminologues de nos unités linguistiques sont présents ici aujourd’hui. Je saisis donc cette occasion pour saluer nos terminologues qui, par leurs efforts quotidiens, apportent une contribution cruciale aux travaux de notre direction générale et plus particulièrement de nos traducteurs. Je salue également les collègues de l’unité de Coordination de la terminologie qui ont organisé ce sommet avec brio.
Enfin, je ne peux que me féliciter que l’Association européenne de terminologie aie décidé de tenir ce VIIIe sommet en nos murs, honorant ainsi la direction générale de la traduction du Parlement et permettant aux collègues du Parlement et des autres institutions européennes de participer à ces débats.
Enfin et surtout, merci à vous, Mme la Ministre Erna Hennicot Schoepges, d’avoir accepté de participer à l’ouverture de ce sommet de la terminologie. Je sais, pour en avoir déjà eu l’occasion d’en parler avec vous, que le caractère multilingue du Luxembourg vous tient également à cœur et qu’en tant qu’ancienne députée au Parlement européen, vous avez pu goûter aux joies du multilinguisme au Parlement. C’est un grand honneur de vous compter parmi nous aujourd’hui. Villmools merci !
8
Une cordiale bienvenue à Luxembourg dans cet hémicycle si intimement lié à l’histoire des institutions européennes, puisque c’est ici que le premier Parlement Européen élu s’est rassemblé en 1979. Quand on a demandé à Umberto Eco quelle était selon lui la langue de l’Europe, il a répondu : C’est la
traduction !
Vous, qui êtes confrontés à la multitude des langues, à laquelle on s’apprête maintenant à ajouter encore le Luxembourgeois, les services que vous rendez au fonctionnement des institutions sont inestimables. J’avoue que parfois durant ma vie parlementaire je préférais écouter le traducteur plutôt que l’orateur, et parfois je me suis demandée comment vous avez réussi à donner une structure au discours par la traduction.
Au titre de mon discours, il manque le point d’interrogation. Qui saurait en effet prédire si d’ici quelques décennies la multitude de langues pratiquées au Grand-Duché ne sera pas dépassée et quel sera alors l’avenir de notre langue le Luxembourgeois. L’initiative populaire de vouloir en faire une vraie langue d’administration suscitera certainement un débat, non seulement linguistique, mais surtout identitaire.
Identité
A l’occasion d’une conférence faite à Berlin à l’Institut pour la Diplomatie Culturelle j’ai demandé aux étudiants de définir leur identité. Les réponses étaient très diverses : les uns se disaient européens nés de parents de nationalités différentes, ayant grandi dans plusieurs pays, avec des attaches à plusieurs cultures. D’autres se sentaient proche de leur pays, ou définissaient leurs racines par leur famille, leur religion, leur culture, leur langue. Encore d’autres disaient se sentir apatrides, sans racines !
Cet épisode n’est évidemment pas représentatif pour un débat de fond sur l’identité, la nationalité et l’appartenance ethnique d’une personne. Toutefois les jeunes générations qui dès leur petite enfance ont voyagé et vécu dans différents pays en ont des perceptions différentes de celles qui à force de luttes et de guerres ont acquis une nationalité définie par des frontières géographiques. Est-ce que l’Etat Nation seul peut être synonyme d’identité ? Le Luxembourg avec ses brassages de nationalités et son multilinguisme séculaire peut être considéré comme un laboratoire pour l’étude de cette
question.
Le Grand-Duché et son histoire
Quelques bribes d’histoire sont nécessaires pour comprendre la longévité du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg, comme état indépendant et souverain.
Carrefour dès le néolithique, terre de passage, cette région fut aussi lieu de séjour à l’époque romaine. Nous n’avons pas encore retracé cette histoire – au grand regret des archéologues. Le théâtre de Dalheim reste le plus grand site excavé. Les alentours, hébergent une cité de quelque 3000 habitants, construite au 2e siècle après JC. C’était la plus importante localité à cette époque, située sur les voies romaines qui reliaient Trêves à Reims. Vu l’importance du site, des excavations n’ont pas encore été entamées. Dans tout le pays de nombreuses villas romaines sont encore enfouies. Un événement phare fut la découverte en 1995, année de Luxembourg Capitale culturelle de l’Europe, d’une mosaïque romaine représentant Hector et les neuf muses. Elle a été restaurée et installée au musée d’histoire et d’art.
9
En 698 Saint Willibrord est autorisé par l’Abbesse Irmine de Oeren de construire sur les terres
appartenant au cloître de Trèves, l’abbaye d’Echternach. Les Bénédictins en ont fait un centre de grande culture. Les plus importants vestiges sont certainement le Codex Aureus, manuscrit enluminé, acquis par le Musée National de Nuremberg. La procession dansante, qui a lieu chaque mardi de Pentecôte a été classée patrimoine mondial immatériel par l’Unesco.
Ce serait trop long de m’attarder à notre histoire du Moyen-âge, lisible à travers les noms de ses souverains, qui étaient empereur, comme Henri VII, roi de Bohême comme Jean l’Aveugle, qui est enterré à Luxembourg, Charles IV empereur, et Sigismond reposant en Roumanie.
Les guerres sévissant au Moyen âge sur le continent n’ont pas épargné cette région. Le
Luxembourg a été convoité par les grandes puissances, occupé par les Habsbourg, les rois d’Espagne, les Prussiens. Le règne des Autrichiens sous l’impératrice Marie-Thérèse fut la période la plus paisible, riche par la culture architecturale léguée.
La forteresse construite par Vauban au XVIe siècle a été célèbre, appelée le Gibraltar du Nord et jamais conquise.
Sous Napoléon nous sommes devenus le département des forêts, les biens de l’église furent confisqués, en contrepartie le régime Napoléonien a obligé l’autorité publique à se charger de la rémunération du clergé. Le Code Napoléon est adopté pour la juridiction.
Au congrès de Vienne 1815 l’ancien Duché de Luxembourg, est désigné Etat tampon entre la France et l’Allemagne, obligé à la neutralité, rapetissé de territoires affectés à la Belgique, la France et l’Allemagne. Devenu Grand-Duché, pour des questions de préséances, il fut rattaché au Roi des Pays- Bas.
De l’Etat à la Nation
La Construction d’un Etat indépendant ne s’est pas faite sans difficultés.
Les effets de la révolution de 1848, ont duré jusqu’en 1867, lorsque le traité de Londres a mis fin aux revendications de Napoléon III qui voulait acheter le Grand-Duché, et de Bismarck, qui voulait l’annexer. La condition du démantèlement de la forteresse y fut actée.
La guerre franco-allemande de 1870–1872 relance une nouvelle fois la question de
l’appartenance du Luxembourg. Grâce à l’intervention du Tsar de Russie, alerté par l’épouse du prince Henri, la princesse Amélie, le statut d’indépendance et de neutralité a été retenu.
Le nouvel état était Membre de la Confédération germanique, lien essentiel pour le développement économique. L’orientation culturelle cependant a été plus forte vers les voisins francophones. Pour créer l’état, il fallait créer une administration, la question linguistique était donc épineuse. Le gouvernement a tranché avec la loi scolaire de 1843 qui est devenu unique en son genre.
L’historien Gilbert Trausch commente comme suit dans son ouvrage « Le Luxembourg, émergence d’un état et d’une Nation » comme suit :
A retenir une caractéristique essentielle des institutions scolaires du pays qui le distingue de ses trois pays voisines : une école unique pour tous les enfants et adolescents qui sera le creuset dans lequel se formeront la solidarité et l’esprit démocratique … Pour tout ce qui touche au droit civil et pénal le gouvernement se tourne vers la France et la Belgique, pays de code Napoléon. … Les lycées
luxembourgeois sont plutôt organisés sur le modèle français et belge. … En revanche s’il s’agit de questions douanières et économiques on s’oriente vers l’Allemagne. … Comme le français est la langue de la réglementation, des problèmes de terminologie se posent parfois … ceci déjà en 1843.
Le débat de cette loi qui obligeait les communes à organiser l’enseignement des deux langues dans les écoles primaires fut rude. Une tentative d’introduire la possibilité d’une dispense, tenant compte de la situation géographique des communes, fut rejetée par le gouvernement avec l’argument que les
10
ouvriers allaient chercher du travail dans les pays voisins et qu’ils avaient avantage à connaître leur langue.
Le premier document en Luxembourgeois date du XIIe siècle. Ce n’était évidemment pas la langue comme nous la connaissons aujourd’hui, elle fut d’ailleurs qualifiée de « Moselfränkisch ». Une riche littérature en Luxembourgeois a pris son essor après la création de l’Etat et l’établissement de l’école publique.
Le Multilinguisme source de connexion
La bourgeoisie, qui s’est installée au Grand-Duché, surtout avec le développement industriel au tournant du siècle pratiquait de préférence le français, alors que les journaux étaient en allemand. Ce bilinguisme a été à l’origine d’une coopération culturelle fructueuse. Après la première guerre mondiale, période marquée par des soulèvements populaires, la question du système d’Etat, Monarchie ou République, fut posée. Le gouvernement a soumis ces questions à un référendum en1919. Après un changement de la loi électorale, élargissant le droit de vote à toute la population, donc aussi aux femmes, les électeurs ont tranché pour la Grande Duchesse Charlotte et le rattachement économique à la France … qui n’a pas voulu de nous. En suit le rattachement économique à la Belgique en 1921 suivi par la création du Benelux en 1948.
Suite à l’initiative d’Aline Mayrisch de St. Hubert, l’épouse d’origine française du patron de l’industrie sidérurgique luxembourgeoise s’est créée une initiative culturelle appelée le Cercle de Colpach, nommé ainsi d’après la demeure des Mayrisch. Parmi les hôtes de Colpach il y avait André Gide, Annette Kolb, Koudenhove Kalergi, Président du Comité central de l’Union Paneuropéenne et Walther Rathenau, industriel et ministre allemand, assassiné à Berlin en 1922.
Emile Mayrisch, décédé lors d’un accident de voiture en 1928 n’a pu poursuivre sa vision d’empêcher la militarisation en cours et d’empêcher un nouvel affrontement entre la France et l’Allemagne.
L’institut Pierre Werner, institut culturel conjoint entre la France, l’Allemagne et le Luxembourg, créé en 2003 a repris cet « esprit de Colpach ». Son siège est à l’Abbaye Neumünster à Luxembourg.
Pendant la deuxième guerre Mondiale le Luxembourg était occupé par les Allemands, en dépit de son statut de neutralité, enrôlé de force à l’armée de l’occupant. Après la guerre les gouvernements ont pris une part active à la création de toutes les organisations internationales.
Membres fondateurs de la Haute autorité du Charbon et de l’Acier en 1951, nous sommes devenus, un peu par hasard et par chance ville siège des futures institutions européennes.
Le développement économique de l’après-guerre connait une période de forte immigration.
L’immigration et l’école
L’Allemand, et bien sûr le Luxembourgeois étant la langue parlée par les gens du peuple, les jeunes apprenaient dès les premières années de leur scolarisation l’allemand, par lequel ils sont alphabétisés, et ensuite le français, donc les langues des voisins. Même après la deuxième guerre Mondiale il n’y eut pas de tentative de bannir la langue de l’occupant Nazi de l’école publique, alors qu’il était interdit de parler le Luxembourgeois pendant l’occupation. La langue c’est avant tout aussi la culture. Notre fierté d’avoir pu lire Goethe en allemand et Victor Hugo en français a certainement contribué à l’évolution d’un multilinguisme bénéfique à notre survie comme État indépendant.
Face à l’immigration portugaise des années 70 l’alphabétisation des enfants était épineuse.
Comment en effet alphabétiser les petits Portugais en allemand ? La demande de cours de langue maternelle offerts en marge des cours à l’école publique était pratiquée. Au Conseil de l’Europe cette pratique fut même inscrite dans des résolutions sur l’immigration.
Entretemps le multilinguisme précoce est promu, l’expérience de l’Ecole Européenne ayant apporté la preuve que ce n’est pas nécessairement une entrave à un bon développement scolaire.
11
Toutefois, nos mauvais résultats dans les études PISA s’expliquent par le volume des programmes scolaires, dus au multilinguisme.
L’alphabétisation en français a été thématisée seulement au tournant du XXIe siècle. Avec la diversification économique, de nombreuses familles de nationalités différentes se sont installées, revendiquant des facilités scolaires pour leur progéniture.
La disparition du système de l’école unique pour tous nécessitera une réflexion profonde sur la cohésion de la population. La question de l’identité, liée à la nationalité qui peut être double,
concernera aussi celle de la cohésion de la population. Terre d’accueil, avec une population résidente de 44% de non Luxembourgeois, les efforts pour l’avenir devront réinventer un multilinguisme élargi, dans le respect des différentes langues des immigrés.
Et le Luxembourgeois ?
Les défenseurs de notre langue se sont fédérés, en action concertée, promouvant les écrits en luxembourgeois dans la presse action qui a abouti à la législation de 1984. Pragmatisme encore : la constitution actuelle stipule que le régime des langues est fixé par la loi.
Le Luxembourgeois a été promu langue nationale, proclamant par la même loi sur le régime linguistique que le français restait la langue officielle et l’allemand langue usuelle, et accordant au citoyen le droit d’avoir une réponse de la part des administrations dans la langue de sa question.
Lors d’une émigration vers la Transsylvanie au 13e siècle notre langue, assimilée au Sächsisch, a survécue quelques 5 000 personnes la parlent encore aujourd’hui. Un dictionnaire est en élaboration, ainsi on pourra comparer l’évolution de la langue en terre roumaine à celle au Grand-Duché.
L’université
Avec la création de l’Université du Luxembourg en 2003 commence une nouvelle ère. Allemand, français et anglais sont les langues imposées pour l’enseignement par la loi. Après 13 ans d’existence l’université est aujourd’hui classée parmi les 180 meilleures universités au niveau mondial.
L’institut de langue et culture luxembourgeoises créé en 2015 est encore un pas vers la sauvegarde de cette identité qui se proclame multilingue.
Le projet sur la terminologie à l’Université du Luxembourg, lancé en 2012 à l’Initiative de Rodolfo Maslias, prouve bien qu’il y a dans toutes les langues des termes qui ne peuvent être traduits dans une autre langue sans perdre une part de leur signification d’origine.
L’étroite coopération de l’Université avec les services européens sur place sera une perspective pour l’approfondissement des éléments culturels liés aux différents régimes linguistiques.
L’exiguïté territoriale y apporte son avantage : la perception de l’autre comme individu, et non pas comme entité anonyme, ajoute à la proximité le caractère humain. L’immigration a permis au Luxembourg de poursuivre son développement économique grâce à la main d’œuvre des immigrés et des frontaliers. Sans le multilinguisme ambiant ce serait chose impossible.
Pour conclure, je dirais : vive la traduction et les traducteurs. A la mobilité physique qui nous est garantie par les accords de Schengen s’ajoute une mobilité du cerveau bénéfique non seulement à la compréhension de l’étranger, mais aussi au respect de sa culture. Et cette diversité des cultures est toujours en attente de trouver sa place bien ancrée dans le monde d’aujourd’hui.
http://termcoord.eu/don-du-multilinguisme-mrs-erna-hennicot-schoepges/
12
At the opening session of the VIII EAFT Summit hosted by the European Parliament (DG TRAD) in Luxembourg a presentation was given on the main terminology platforms of the European Institutions by Denis Dechandon, Chairman of the IATE Management Group, Paula Zorilla-Agut, coordinator of the IATE development team, Maria Pia Montoro, coordinator of EurTerm, and Rodolfo Maslias, Head of the Terminology Coordination Unit of the European Parliament.
IATE 2
The EAFT summit organised by the European Parliament provided an opportunity to bring the
terminology community up to date on the new developments taking place around IATE. Since this tool was designed and developed in the early 2000s, it has reached a point where implementing new features requested by users, adapting it to new usability, responsiveness and accessibility standards and making it more interoperable with other EU and external tools has become a technical challenge.
In order to increase user satisfaction, guarantee higher data quality, larger scalability and interoperability, contribute to increased efficiency in terminology tools and facilitate technical maintenance, the IATE partners have embarked on the redevelopment of IATE, with enlarged search capabilities, higher integration with CAT tools, advanced communication features, an optimised terminology project management module, and many more improved and new features.
13
The development has started with the data entry features (creation, modification and deletion of entries and advanced reference management) and will continue with expanded search, statistics and user management before moving forward to more advanced features like import, advanced export, integration with CAT tools, communication features and many more in 2017 and 2018.
EurTerm
Terminology work has never been a solitary activity: terminologists need subject matter experts, while subject matter experts often need the input from language specialists. Collaborative platforms can bring researchers and experts closer together in a common strategy.
Most translators and terminologists store terminology in spreadsheets or tables. Terms are gathered manually, maintained manually and looked up manually. These manual processes are extremely time-consuming and cumbersome, and as a result, terminology managed via spreadsheets is almost always out of date. The expectations of quantity and speed of terminology deliveries have changed over the last years, and so have technologies: emails have shortened the distance between the resource and the terminologist, but they are no longer sufficient. Collaborative platforms for
terminology management provide a wide range of opportunities: contribution, feedback and voting mechanisms can produce valuable input for many terminology scenarios. That is why EurTerm has been created. EurTerm is an interinstitutional collaborative platform adapted to the terminological needs of EU terminologists and translators. Being a networked, multiuser platform, it contains functionalities enabling participants to share their knowledge quickly and efficiently. Terminologists can access their colleagues’ input and use it to produce terminological entries to be stored later in IATE. The main asset of EurTerm is providing a vast amount of knowledge that would not otherwise be accessible to terminologists in their offices. EurTerm also reduces the use of emails for terminology work in order to avoid the "depths" of email inboxes: valuable terminology conversations stay trapped in emails, inaccessible to others who might benefit from them. EurTerm captures this internal knowledge and prevents it from being lost. Communication is thus made transparent by shifting it into the collaboration platform.
Benefits from using EurTerm for terminology work:
• single point of access for documentation on terminology projects;
• discussion groups;
• easy sharing of information through blog posts, wikis, discussion fora;
• sharing terminology resources;
• improving collaboration with subject matter experts for validation,
• integration of information and indexation of resources – EurTerm offers a combination of real- time data coming from the input of the users. The search functionality suggests search results as the user is typing – pages, blog posts, files and documents, thus making all the data immediately available.
14
EurTerm is accessible to all staff of the EU Institutions through an account secured by a password (EU login) and to some collaborating external experts to who may be granted read access.
EurTerm also gives access to 24 language-specific wikis which allow direct online cooperation of terminologists and translators from all EU Institutions.
termcoord.eu
The website of the Terminology Coordination Unit of the European Parliament, termcoord.eu, is the only public terminology website of the European Institutions. It gives direct access to all EU terminology resources open to the public and has an average of 40,000 visitors per month. It also provides a cooperative platform for several projects of terminology cooperation with a wide network of
international organisations, universities and companies specialised in terminology and linguistics. The most interesting pages were presented to the audience:
• Interviews with well-known terminologists and linguists conducted by trainees of TermCoord, which are published in a downloadable e-book, also accessible from the EU Open Data Portal
• Cooperation with universities for terminology projects based on a framework agreement for importing in IATE
• IATE Term of the Week, a series of regular posts on selected IATE entries related to relevant news of the week
• Downloading IATE contents in TBX-format
• GlossaryLinks, a tool giving access to selected specialised glossaries filtered by language and domain
• EU Glossaries, a collection of multilingual glossaries provided by all EU Institutions
• DocHound, a one-stop-shop for accessing all official documents of all EU Institutions
• Terminology of all EU Agencies
• Material and presentations from terminology events organised or hosted by the European Parliament
15
16
1. Introduction
1.1. Serbian language
The Serbian language belongs to the group of South Slavic languages and has a long history. The information about the number of native speakers of the Serbian language varies depending on the source: some estimates are that it has around 8.7 million native speakers (6.2 million in Serbia and many abroad), and that the number is constantly decreasing. The Serbian language uses two alphabets, both Cyrillic and Latin, while only the Cyrillic alphabet has the official status.
To understand the current status of the Serbian language, we will go back into the recent history.
Namely, in the times of former Yugoslavia, this language code was commonly known as Serbo-Croatian, the name reflecting the typological proximity and resemblance of the two languages. However, under the influence of socio-political circumstances during the 1990s (the disintegration of the former Yugoslavia, the civil war and political tensions, growing nationalism, etc.), the Serbo-Croatian language was broken up into separate idioms, often referred to as political languages by Serbian linguists (Piper 2010:31): Serbian, Croatian, even Bosnian and Montenegrin1 (the last two are often denied their legitimacy). This linguistic secession (in words of Serbian linguist Predrag Piper 2010:31) was
accompanied by often deliberate efforts aimed at changing the linguistic profile of the new languages, different choices of spelling rules, official alphabet (Latin for Croatian and Cyrillic for Serbian), some aspects of standardization, and purist tendencies versus tendencies towards internationalization of terminology. Political efforts aimed at changing of the Serbian linguistic profile were made for the most part by encouraging the use of the Cyrillic alphabet and by granting it the official status in the Republic of Serbia. These efforts, however, have not been successful enough, since the use of the Latin alphabet has increased in both private and public domain, as evidenced by a newspaper survey cited by Klajn (2003:126) in Bugarski (2009:4). The results of the survey proved that 39.8 % of respondents use only the Latin alphabet, and only 21.9 % the Cyrillic one, while the rest of the respondents alternate between the two. Whether Serbian and Croatian are one or two separate languages even now seems to be a question of intense debate among linguists.
Another important issue affecting the Serbian language in times of economic, political and linguistic globalization is the problem of its maintenance of its functionality. Many Serbian linguists are discussing the problem of linguistic angloholism (Prćić 2004: 560) or Anglo-Serbian language (Prćić, 2000: 872, 2004: 562, Vasić et al.2001), a pseudo-normative language whose use is for the most part status-related and which undermine the Serbian literary and linguistic norm (Piper 2010:49) by marginalizing its functionality in the public sphere.
1 The official language spoken in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Republic of Montenegro in the times of former Yugoslavia was Serbo-Croatian.
17
1.2. Serbian language policy and planningSerbian language policy and planning are based on the nationalistic cultural model, they are top-down oriented and under a strong influence of socio-political context and language ideology. The main authority regarding language policy and planning in the Republic of Serbia is the state government that works in close cooperation with national language institutions, such as the Institute for the Serbian language and the Committee for Serbian Language Standardization (within the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts), the National Council for Serbian Language and Alphabet, etc. The linguistic matter is prescribed and regulated by the Act on Official Use of Language and Alphabet (Official Gazette of RS, no.
45/91, 53/93, 67/93, 48/94, 101/05, 30/10) and the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia (Constitutions of 1974, 1990 and 2000, and the last version in 2006).
Having in mind the socio-cultural and political circumstances, the Serbian language and its policy and planning are nowadays focusing on two main issues. Namely, on the one hand, the current language policy in Serbia is “directed almost exclusively to the issues and problems of relationship status, linguistic corpus and sociolinguistic connotations of Serbian in relation to Serbo-Croatian, Croatian, Bosnian, and Montenegrin” (Filipović 2009:63), while the Serbian language is viewed as the basic carrier “of national, cultural, political and standard language unity” (Brborić 2000:52). On the other hand, Serbian linguists are pointing to the issues of maintenance of Serbian language purity in the face of rapid and inevitable penetration of anglicisms. Therefore, it is necessary to reconsider the nationalistic language policy and planning in Serbia and to find a compromise direction: between cultural modernization that comes with globalization processes on the one hand and language self-preservation (Filipović 2009:64) and
traditional nationalism on the other. Bugarski (2005:95) introduces the term integrative model aiming to reconcile the two extreme positions: the one of linguistic ecology and the one of indiscriminate and uncritical use of English as the global lingua franca.
The number and the scope of projects of national importance regarding the implementation of Serbian language policy and planning, as well as their duration, point to the main problem that the Serbian language is facing today: lack of funding, which in turn reflects a lack of awareness of their importance by the state authorities and results in the neglect of the Serbian language. For example, the work on the publication of the Dictionary of the Serbo-Croatian Language has been in progress (with several interruptions) since the 1950’s. Nineteen out of 30 volumes have been completed and
published2 (up to letter P) so far. Needless to say, there is a question whether some of the volumes have become obsolete and incomplete in the meantime, as well as the question whether the name of the dictionary itself should be changed and refer to Serbian instead of Serbo-Croatian language.
2 Serbian terminology 2.1 Terminology research
Serbian language for specific purposes, scientific and technical terminology as its essential part, have only recently become important research topics of language policy and corpus planning. Owing to the fact that Serbia is a country that is economically, technologically and politically dependent on developed countries, two parallel processes have affected the development of its scientific and technical
terminology: globalization and internationalization of professional terminology for easier and more efficient communication on the one hand, and localization or translation, construction or adaptation of the terminology in the Serbian language with the purpose of preserving its cultural identity, on the other hand. We believe that terminology of “small languages” such as Serbian represents a strategic resource and its conscious and systematic development is a means of preventing domain loss and enabling language maintenance. It is also noticeable that most scientific and technical domains are experiencing negligent and random adoption of unadapted foreign (English) terms for either a new or an existing concept (thus resulting in terminological synonymy).
2 http://www.dml.rs/index.php/lat/tekstovi-lat/leksikografija-lat/79-recnici-savremenog-srpskog-jezika-lat
18
According to the relevant literature, the issues regarding scientific and technical terminology in the Serbian language have generally been dealt with language and terminology policy and planning and terminology standardization (Bugarski 1996, 2005, Filipović and Filipović 1997, 1998, Filipović 2002, Prćić 1996, Jakić 2012, 2013, Đordan et al. 2016, Silaški 2009a). Fewer scientific and research papers approach this topic from the perspective of natural language processing and computational linguistics, and represent the very few examples of electronic corpora for term extraction and other terminological resources and tools specifically designed for the Serbian language (Stanković et al. 2012, Stanković et al.
2014). To a somewhat lesser extent, terminology is approached from the perspective of cognitive linguistics, mainly when it comes to translating foreign metaphorical terms into the Serbian language (e.g. Silaški 2012:103–121 for the domain of economics). The most common domains covered in terminology research are economics (Silaški 2000, 2009a, 2009b, 2012), marketing (Silaški 2009a, Đordan 2016) and management (Jakić 2012, 2013, Anđelković 2014, Anđelković et al. 2014). Other terminology domains are present in research papers to somewhat lesser extent, e.g. traffic engineering (Dimković-Telebaković 2013, 2014), sport (Milić et. al 1998, Milić 2003, 2006), library and information sciences (Kovačević 2000), medicine (Mićić 2011) and electrical engineering (Tasić 2010).
The most important terminology issue is certainly the growing internalization and the
anglicization of Serbian scientific and technical terminology (Silaški 2009a, 2009b, 2012, Tasić 2010). It is not surprising that domains covered by sociolinguistic research of terminology in the Serbian language are the ones experiencing the most rapid growth and development, followed by constant emergence of new concepts and corresponding (English) terms, such as marketing, management, information technologies, etc.
Newly adopted terminological anglicisms are studied in terms of their adaptation to the Serbian language system. Prćić (1996:203–205), for example, highlights the importance of their consistent adaptation, both formal (phonological and graphological) and content-adaptation (by means of calquing or translation), while Silaški (2012:26–42) and Jakić (2012:39) also emphasize the importance of
linguistic adaptation of terminological anglicisms on all levels. Terminological synonymy also represents a frequent topic of terminology research. It is seen as one of the most prominent problems of Serbian terminology, often caused by uncontrollable borrowing of anglicisms for concepts already named in Serbian. Another interconnected topic of terminology research is the necessity of urgent and consistent standardization of Serbian technical terminology.
Research papers dealing with terminology from the perspective of computational linguistics are for the most part dedicated to the presentation of software tools and resources used for terminology management, extraction and processing, developed for the Serbian language in particular, having that this is a highly flective language (Stanković et al. 2012, Stanković et al. 2014).
2.2 Criteria for terminology evaluation
One of the most important issues related to adequate standardization of terminology is the criteria implemented in deciding which terminology alternative to choose and standardize, especially in case of terminology variation, synonymy and polysemy. The criteria for term evaluation followed in the majority of research papers dealing with Serbian terminology standardization are the ones proposed by Bugarski (1996:25–28, 2007:109). Bugarski’s experimental matrix consists of the following criteria for term evaluation (hierarchically organized from the most important to the least important):
1. systemicity, 2. productivity, 3. uniformity,
4. internationalization, 5. motivation, 6. diffusion, 7. stability,
19
8. connotation,9. brevity,
10. easy pronunciation.
Bugarski proposes that each terminological alternative in a pair of alternatives should be assigned a value of plus + (has the property) or a minus − (does not have the property) or 0 (neutral term) for each of the criteria. The aim of such quantification of properties for each terminological alternative is to objectively determine the advantage of one of them over another, and to relatively precisely assess which alternative should be given the priority in terminology standardization. Scientific and theoretical importance of the matrix of the terminology evaluation criteria devised by Bugarski was applied in the various scientific and technical domains, e.g. quality control, information technology, linguistics and engineering (Filipović and Filipović 1997: 285–291), sport (Milić 2013), management (Đordan 2016: 146–
162). Even though some authors have questioned the hierarchy of Bugarski’s criteria (e.g. Filipović and Filipović 1997), this matrix still remains very relevant for the Serbian terminology standardization needs.
2.3 Terminology policy and planning: institutional framework
Unlike language policy and planning, terminology policy and planning of the Serbian language are not explicitly regulated by legal acts and the constitution. In addition, the institutional framework for terminology is rather weak, i.e. there is not a single institution exclusively in charge of Serbian
terminology policy and planning; these tasks are rather distributed among several language institutions.
Jakić (2012:223–225) notes that terminology policy and planning is the issue of national importance that should be dealt with cooperatively by language institutions, the government and its ministries (e.g. the Ministry of Education and Science), universities, associated colleges, language societies and the Institute for Standardization of the Republic of Serbia, while at the same time signalling to the danger of
transferring the responsibility from one institution to another.
If we look at the activities performed by language institutions in more detail, however, it becomes obvious that work regarding terminology policy and planning is scarce, and is performed mainly within larger projects, not separately.
The Institute for the Serbian language (Serb. Institut za srpski jezik3), as a part of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts – SASA (Serb. Srpska akademija nauka i umetnosti4), for example, is currently in charge of two complex projects, the first one oriented towards linguistic research of contemporary Serbian language and the publication of a comprehensive Serbo-Croatian language dictionary (mentioned above), and the second aiming at the description and standardization of the Serbian language. Official documents and scientific papers regarding these projects (available on the Institute’s website) do not confirm whether and to what extent terminology work is covered. Among the 24 monographs published by the Institute and available online, only one is dedicated to terminology (Fruit growing terminology by Neđo G. Jošić), and in all the journals issued by the Institute (five in total – Južnoslovenski filolog, Naš jezik, Lingvističke aktuelnosti, Srpski dijalektološki zbornik, Zbornik Instututa za srpski jezik SANU), we have found only one book review regarding terminology (Journal Lingvističke aktuelnosti, no. 28, a monograph review by Svetlana Spajić).
The Institute was, however, the co-organizer and the host of two important terminology
conferences: the Yugoslav conference on terminology standardization (in 1996) and, twenty years later, the International Conference on Slovene terminology today (in 2016). The long time-span between the two conferences confirms that Serbian terminology research was neglected for a long time, but (hopefully) the awareness of its importance is rising.
3 http://www.isj-sanu.rs/
4 https://www.sanu.ac.rs/
20
Regarding the international terminology cooperation, the Institute of the Serbian Language is a member of the Terminology Board within the International Slavic Committee, and there is an initiative for its membership in ЕAFT – the European Association for Terminology.
The Board for Standardisation of the Serbian Language (Serb. Odbor za standardizaciju srpskog jezika5) was founded in 1997 within the Institute for Serbian Language and the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts (SASA) with the aim of bringing together Serbian language experts and scientific institutions with the purpose of professional and organized language planning and achieving adequate language policy and practice in newly created socio-political circumstances after the breakup of former Yugoslavia. The complex and demanding work on Serbian language standardization was allocated to nine board committees (for phonology, morphology and word formation, syntax, corpus, lexicology and lexicography, etc.). In addition to the systematic standardization of the Serbian language as its most important objective, the Board points out the importance of Serbian language involvement in
terminology (i.e. communication, information technology) projects and standards6. Act 5 of the Board’s program represents its orientation regarding terminology standardization, by seeking to reconcile the growing penetration of English with the need to protect the Serbian language by activating its word formation power: this can be understood as the acceptance of the aforementioned interactive language standardization model (Bugarski 2005:96).
Within the Board of Serbian Language standardization there is a Committee for Public Relations and Addressing Urgent Issues (Serb. Komisija za odnose sa javnošću i rešavanje neodložnih pitanja), which provides terminological services; however, we have found only one inquiry regarding terminological ambiguity directed at this Committee.
The National Council for the Serbian Language and Script (Serb. Nacionalno veće za srpski jezik i pismo7) is a non-governmental, non-profit and independent organization established in 2002. The Council does not deal with language and language policy and planning in the broadest sense, but rather monitors the language development and standardization in different areas, having in mind the socio- cultural, social and civilization aspects, as well as the terminology aspect of technology and global civilization. One of the most important tasks of the Council regarding terminology work is to monitor projects dealing with localization of software packages and software tools, as well as assisting in the development of specialized linguistic tools for the Serbian language. As its most important project the Council’s website mentions the publication of the White Paper of Serbian localization, as well as the control process established in order to assure the standardness, acceptability and legality of localization.
2.4 Terminology management: resources, activities and institutions
Terminology management activities in Serbia are mostly performed through individual initiatives and projects. This is especially so when it comes to scientific and technical terminology for individual subject- field domains. One of the possible reasons behind this is the absence of an institutional authority (i.e. a terminology centre) that would act as the supervisor and coordinator of these projects, and, obviously and certainly, insufficient or non-existent funding.
2.4.1 Terminology resources: an overview
Upon investigating the number and the quality of terminological resources (dictionaries, databases, glossaries, lexicons) dealing with domain-specific terminology in Serbian published in the past 10 years or available online, we have discovered quite a poor choice, especially when it comes to digital
resources. In the absence of available resources, scientific and technical translators in Serbia mostly rely on self-made glossaries of terms, or on Croatian terminological resources, which, though in some matters unreliable to Serbian speakers (due to language differences), are still more varied than the ones in Serbian.
5 http://www.isj-sanu.rs/rubrike/odbor/75/2015/03/10/odbor-za-standardizaciju-srpskog-jezika.html
6 https://www.rastko.rs/filologija/odbor/program_c.html
7 http://www.jezik.org/
21
One of the few Serbian terminological dictionaries worth mentioning is the bilingual (English–Serbian, Serbian–English) Medical Dictionary, published in 2011 by Sofija Mićić. The dictionary contains 879 pages and over 40 000 entries in both languages. As stated in its preface, this is the first dictionary in Serbian of this kind, containing both outdated and modern medical terms, collected with the attempt at standardization of medical terminology. In the preface, the author Mićić also emphasizes the
undeveloped state of the Serbian language, the indiscriminate adoption of unadapted anglicisms, as well as the lack of contemporary Serbian language dictionaries, standards and grammar as the main obstacle experienced during the compilation of the dictionary.
The Dictionary of Library and Information Science was compiled by Ljiljana Kovacević, Dobrila Begenišić and Vesna Injac-Malbaša8 in 2014. The dictionary is available both in paper and online, in the form of a database, and contains approximately 40 000 entries in three languages (14 000 in Serbian, 12 400 in English and 14 000 in German), with 900 definitions or annotation terms. The dictionary’s website9 states that the purpose of this dictionary (i.e. the electronic terminology database) is to “help and improve the flow of information in the library environment” ..., and “the development of library terminology in Serbian language”. The choice of terms to be included in the dictionary was based on the study of a corpus consisting of domain-specific research papers available either in print or in electronic form, as well as on the study of terminology already present in the existing dictionaries, encyclopedias, terminology and bibliographic standards.
Electronic glossary of geology GeolISSTerm10, developed within the project titled Development of Geological Terminology and Nomenclature for Serbia Geological Database at the Faculty of Mining and Geology, University of Belgrade, represents one of the basic resources of the Geological Information System of Serbia (GeolISS). The dictionary is partly based on the analysis of a comprehensive
lexicographic publication Geological terminology and nomenclature (Petković 1975), and was made with the purpose of eliminating the examples of synonymy, homonymy, idioms, archaisms, imprecise terminology definitions, etc. from the original publication (Stanković et al. 2010:57). Being an online resource, GeolISSTerm is constantly being updated: in 2011 it contains about 3800 of terms organized alphabetically, positioned on the semantic scale between taxonomy and a thesaurus, and with an ambition of growing into an ontology a terminology knowledge base (Stanković et al. 2010:53–57). The online GeolISSTerm dictionary was published in 2011 (Stanković et al. 2011:54).
An institution worth mentioning with regard to computational terminology management in the Serbian language is the Society for Language Resources and Technology (Serb. Društvo za jezičke resurse i tehnologije – JeRTeh), based at the Faculty of Philology, University of Belgrade. Even though the primary tasks of this society are “the promotion, popularization and improvement of all the branches of linguistic technology on the scientific, professional and practical level”, and “the contribution to the creation of lexical resources in the digital form” and (perhaps most importantly) “the preservation of Serbian language in the digital age”, several of its projects are directed at developing and maintaining terminological resources and tools for the Serbian language. Namely, a group of JeRTeh researchers, led by professor Ranka Stanković, have developed a language and terminology tool Biblisha (Serb. Bibliša), designed for analysis of aligned (English–Serbian) texts and research articles from several collections:
WordNet, INTERA and BAEKTEL TEMPUS projects, as well as from the Infoteka journal (for the domain of library and information technologies), Stomatološki glasnik Srbije (for the domain of dentistry),
Arhitektura i urbanizam (for the domain of architecture), and Podzemni radovi (for the domain of mining), Menadžment (for the domain of management). Biblisha is an indispensable tool for Serbian terminology extraction, creation of termbases, technical translation, corpus-based language and
8 This dictinary was based on the Library terminology dictionary (English–Serbian, Serbian–English), compiled by the same authors and issued by the National Library of Serbia, in paper in 2004, online in 2002, and on a CD in 2002.
The paper version had approximately 23 000 term entries in both directions.
9 http://rbi.nb.rs/srlat/dict.html
10 http://geoliss.mre.gov.rs/recnik/recpj.aspx
22
terminology research, as well for comparative and contrastive terminology and LSP research. The aforementioned Dictionary of Library and Information Science is partly based on term extraction from aligned research papers from Infoteka journal available through Bibliša.
2.4.2 Terminology education and training
Serbian universities are lacking undergraduate and graduate programs that are specifically designed for terminology compilation, processing and management. In addition, to our knowledge, there are no courses, seminars and training sessions aimed at translators and technical writers that would enable them more efficient handling and consistent use of terminology.
However, several years ago, the Faculty of Philology, University of Belgrade, initiated an
accredited M.A. program in Translation and Interpreting, carried out within a TEMPUS project Reforming Foreign Language Studies in Serbia (REFLESS) contacting sources in terminology management. The same faculty is currently preparing an application for Erasmus Mundus Joint European Master’s Degree in Interpreting, MAGIS (Master in Glocal Interpreting Services), coordinated by the Universidad Autonoma de Barcelona, whose focus would be on public service and community interpreting, but it would also open up space for the creation of a regional center for translation and interpreting11. The purpose of both programs is human capacity building for the translation workload, accompanying the pre-accession and the accession of Serbia to the European Union, that necessarily involves activities on terminology consolidation, harmonization, and management.
2.5 Terminology management in the context of EU integration
The most topical issue with regard to terminology management is certainly related to the ongoing process of Serbian preparation for the accession to the European Union and the considerable workload of translation of legislative documents that accompany the process. The institution in charge of this task is the Sector for Translation Coordination within the Office for European Integration of the Republic of Serbia12. The Sector itself employs several terminologists and translators, while the majority of translations is outsourced by contracted translation agencies.
In order to assure the quality of translation and the consistent use of terminology among the contracted agencies, the Sector for Translation Coordination has developed several digitally available resources. Multilingual terminology database Evronim13is a publicly available terminographic resource aimed at providing support to scientific and technical translators in achieving terminological consistency.
Terminological entries in Evronim are terms, phrases, and common expressions in Serbian and their English equivalents (some entries also contain equivalents in one or several out of 15 available European languages, including Latin). The terminology database is regularly updated, and currently contains more than 18 000 entries. Each terminological entry includes a definition, a context, an example of use, hypernyms and hyponyms, grammatical information, and metadata relating to the domains and subdomains that the term in question belongs to, references, the source of the term, source of its definition, the source of its usage context, etc. In addition, each entry in Evronim is graded on a scale from 1 to 4 in terms of its translation reliability: based on whether the use of the term is suggested, confirmed, recommended or verified (1 = recommended term, yet to be confirmed, 2 = a used term, but has not been confirmed in editing, 3 = a term confirmed and recommended by experts and/or by legal editors, 4 = verified term).
In addition to Evronim termbase, the Sector for Translation Coordination also uses Evroteka, a bilingual, English–Serbian collection of legal texts or excerpts created throughout the translation with the use of the CAT tool Trados. Evroteka is regularly updated and currently contains over 102 500 words, or almost 5 000 translation units, out of which approximately 3 500 were exported into the Evronim
11Source: communication with Jelena Filipović, PhD, vice-Dean for Science of the Faculty of Philology, University of Belgrade.
12 http://www.seio.gov.rs/src/kancelarija/sektori/sektor-za-koordinaciju-prevodjenja/
13 http://prevodjenje.seio.gov.rs/evronim/index.php?jezik=engl
23
termbase. Upon entering a word or a phrase in the search bar, Evroteka provides a text segment corresponding to the query. Since Evroteka is primarily aimed at translators, the texts have not been fully aligned and pre-processed (in terms of lemmatization, tagging, parsing, etc.), which makes it less suitable for thorough terminology and linguistic research.
The website of the Office for European Integration – Sector for Translation Coordination14 also provides several manuals and guidelines for the translation of the European acquis communautaire, and especially instructions that refer to terminology translation15. Terminology guidelines suggest that in translating terminology into Serbian, one should follow a set of predefined terminology principles:
1. A term should be clear and unambiguous, regardless whether it is domestic or borrowed, 2. Domestic terms have a priority over foreign terms,
3. Terms of Latin and Greek origin have priority over other foreign terms, 4. Well established and widely used terms have priority over other terms,
5. Terms that follow standard language norm (phonological, morphological, syntactic and word formation rules) are given preference,
6. Shorter terms have a priority over longer terms, and
7. In terms of word formation, more productive terms have a priority over less productive ones.
The quality and consistency of translations is constantly monitored and controlled; however, according to terminologists employed in the Sector, it is an extremely demanding task, having in mind that the guidelines and instructions for achieving high-quality and consistent translation are not always consistently followed.
The Sector for Translation Coordination works in close cooperation with the Faculty of Philology, University of Belgrade, and provides valuable support in both the implementation of Master studies in Translating and Interpreting, as well as in the initiative towards a Center for Terminology, Translation and Transdisciplinary Studies that is currently in the process of establishment.
3 Case study: Serbian management terminology
In this chapter, we would like to illustrate the state of Serbian terminology, terminology management and planning by focusing on a particular subject domain. The domain of management has not been chosen in an ad hoc manner; rather, we have chosen it because it represents a rapidly developing scientific and practical discipline with a growing number of newly emerging concepts that need to be named. Serbian terminology issues discussed earlier in this paper, e.g. terminology gaps, variation, synonymy and polysemy, indiscriminate adoption of terminology anglicisms, etc., are very prominent in this domain. There is an evident lack of terminographic resources, which are either outdated or not comprehensive enough.
Linguistic research papers dealing with management terminology (e.g. Živojinović and Gajić 1996:70, Jakić 2012, Silaški 2009, Anđelković 2014, Anđelković et. al 2014) focus on the fact that the Serbian terminology in the domain of management is in the state of disorder, characterized by terminology gaps, synonymy and variation, and in need of urgent harmonization and standardization.
Živojinović and Gajić (1996:69, 72) see this as a result of (a) the complexity of management and its close connection with other disciplines (i.e. multidisciplinary nature of management domain), and (b) theoretical heterogeneity inherent to organizational thought and the existence of a variety of theoretical approaches and schools of management.
As discussed above, the most commonly observed solution to management terminology
problems is seen in its standardization. Živojinović and Gajić (1996:69–71) claim that the prerequisite for management terminology standardization is precise definition of its basic concepts, while Silaški
14 http://www.seio.gov.rs/srl/kancelarija/sektori/sektor-za-koordinaciju-prevodjenja/#
15 http://www.seio.gov.rs/upload/documents/prevodjenje/terminoloska_uputstva.pdf
24
(2012:133–134) suggests steps that need to be taken in standardization process. Jakić (2012:115–126), in addition, follows Bugarski’s matrix of criteria for management terminology evaluation, and proposes an institutional and normative model of terminology standardization of in the domain of management.
3.1 Management terminology questionnaire
The information about the contemporary state of Serbian terminology, policy and planning presented in previous chapters was for the most part provided by (socio-) linguists and language planners.
In the summer of 2016 we conducted a survey among the subject-domain experts in order to find out their opinions and attitudes about the state of terminology in the domain of management, as well as to identify the responsible parties and offer possible solutions for the problematic terminological questions.
The questionnaire was conducted at the Department for Management and Specialized Management Disciplines, Faculty of Organizational Sciences, University of Belgrade. Out of 50 respondents who completed the questionnaire, 4 respondents were Full Professors, 6 Associate Professors, 6 Assistant Professors, 27 teaching assistants/PhD students, and 7 students of Master studies at this department.
When asked to rank the current state of Serbian terminology in the field of management, 52 % of the respondents marked the answer “unsatisfactory”, while only 2 % the respondents believed that it is
“excellent”.
The respondents were also asked to mark one or several problems that Serbian terminology in the domain of management is currently facing, and the results were as follows:
Figure 1: Language related problems at the domain of management
As we can observe from the graph above, two interconnected terminology issues, the existence of terminology gaps and terminological dependence on the English language are given almost the same importance (87.50 % and 81.25 % of the respondents marked these issues as the most pressing ones.
More than half of the respondents also believe that unstandardized terminology (64.58 %) and lack of terminographical resources (52.08 %) are the issues of importance.
When asked about the institution that should be responsible for terminology in the domain of management and its policy and planning, the majority of respondents (34.09 %) claimed that the institution in charge should be the University, i.e. faculties teaching the subject matter, while 22,73 %
